Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Today Google bricked my Chromebook by force-installing a hidden extension

    (cloudisland.nz)
    237 points robin_reala | 19 comments | 29 Mar 25 09:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.866s | source | bottom
    1. tossandthrow ◴[29 Mar 25 09:55 UTC] No.43514173[source]▶
    If the machine is less than 2 years old (and you are in eruope) just return it as defect.
    replies(2): >>43514253 #>>43514503 #
    2. ginko ◴[29 Mar 25 10:14 UTC] No.43514253[source]▶
    If OP is in Europe Google could be drawn and quartered for GDPR violations.
    replies(3): >>43514307 #>>43514463 #>>43515368 #
    3. hilbert42 ◴[29 Mar 25 10:27 UTC] No.43514307[source]▶
    Exactly!
    4. kleiba ◴[29 Mar 25 11:00 UTC] No.43514463[source]▶
    "could" being the point here - as Joe Bloke, you're not going to get yourself into a legal dispute with Google, but it's not very hard to return an electronic device as an ordinary end consumer when it's still under warranty.
    replies(3): >>43514488 #>>43514810 #>>43516061 #
    5. nottorp ◴[29 Mar 25 11:05 UTC] No.43514488{3}[source]▶
    You don't need to sue Google, just file a complaint with whatever the GDPR authority is in your country ...
    replies(2): >>43514516 #>>43514818 #
    6. em-bee ◴[29 Mar 25 11:07 UTC] No.43514503[source]▶
    laws should be adapted to extend the warranty every time a remote change is made to the device. basically, the warranty should hold as long as the device is maintained. say, each update should come with half a year of warranty. it's a bit tricky as it could motivate companies to stop updating, but that could be solved with a separate law forcing companies to provide an extra number of years to provide updates. (if that doesn't exist already)
    replies(3): >>43514528 #>>43514565 #>>43514601 #
    7. zazazache ◴[29 Mar 25 11:09 UTC] No.43514516{4}[source]▶
    Better to just contact NOYB directly, they are responsible for about 50% of all GDPR fines to date. Outside of Norway the DPAs seem mostly useless, especially when it comes to big tech…
    8. ginko ◴[29 Mar 25 11:11 UTC] No.43514528[source]▶
    Sounds like a good way to make sure that companies drop SW support as quickly as possible.
    replies(3): >>43514546 #>>43515342 #>>43517666 #
    9. tossandthrow ◴[29 Mar 25 11:16 UTC] No.43514546{3}[source]▶
    Not if it as accompanied by laws about a lower bar for the functioning of software. Eg. regular sec patches etc.

    However, this would be a great way of separating hardware and software products - and would that be so bad?

    10. haswell ◴[29 Mar 25 11:19 UTC] No.43514565[source]▶
    I don’t think relying on new laws as the primary incentive is going to get far, especially when big tech has the outsized influence they do on government. This then just leaves a strong incentive to stop updating things.
    11. juergbi ◴[29 Mar 25 11:25 UTC] No.43514601[source]▶
    This may make sense if the extended warranty is limited to defects introduced by the remote change. I.e., if they remotely break your device, they should be responsible for fixing the damage. A full warranty extension doesn't seem reasonable to me, though.

    With regards to your last sentence, I think a good first step would be to require at least security and other critical updates to be provided within the full warranty period. And this would make sense even without the (limited) warranty extension, and I actually consider it more important.

    replies(1): >>43514638 #
    12. em-bee ◴[29 Mar 25 11:32 UTC] No.43514638{3}[source]▶
    if the extended warranty is limited to defects introduced by the remote change

    yes, of course. it may be hard to distinguish though. the device getting hot may create additional stress on the mainboard or RAM or other parts causing it to break faster.

    13. dgellow ◴[29 Mar 25 12:00 UTC] No.43514810{3}[source]▶
    Anyone can submit a complaint: https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-role-supervis...
    14. kleiba ◴[29 Mar 25 12:01 UTC] No.43514818{4}[source]▶
    I'd be interested to know if anyone on HN has actually done that in the past, and what the experience was?
    replies(1): >>43516725 #
    15. TeMPOraL ◴[29 Mar 25 13:24 UTC] No.43515342{3}[source]▶
    They already do.
    16. mardifoufs ◴[29 Mar 25 13:28 UTC] No.43515368[source]▶
    GPDR forbids local OCR? Can you be more specific
    17. Matthyze ◴[29 Mar 25 14:58 UTC] No.43516061{3}[source]▶
    That's not how the GDPR works. Just like criminal procedure, subjects do not sue alleged offenders themselves. The state instead sues on their behalf.
    18. robin_reala ◴[29 Mar 25 16:37 UTC] No.43516725{5}[source]▶
    Confiks managed to get Spotify to reinstate the API that allowed connections to SongShift with a GDPR complaint about the right to data portability (or threat thereof): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371
    19. exe34 ◴[29 Mar 25 18:59 UTC] No.43517666{3}[source]▶
    As long as they release all the source and build tools, I'm okay with that.